Mormon says "first apostles, second prophets"

[concerneduser]

Hi, From what I know being Catholic, there are no more prophets after Jesus. Yet, a mormon ( converted from Catholicism) refers to 1 Corinthians 12:28 to be “Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.” Does this mean there could actually be prophets after Christ? And why would we really need any more prophets anyways? Christ already came, we need no more laws of the old testamate, the ultimate sacrafice has already been had and we are no longer in the first covenant, Jesus is the new covenant through the Eucharist: Christ has died, Christ is risin, Christ will come again…but according to them, not before more prophets? I’m confused, we already have been given Jesus and our sins are forgivin, we already know what to look for in terms of the second coming…so why do we need more prophets? Help me please understand this scripture and their interpretation. Also what is the Catholic interpretation of this verse? From what I know and believe, there is no more need for prophets and there won’t be any. Thanks

 

[svid]

St. John the Divine (writer of Revelation) certainly must be considered a prophet. Maybe the deal is, there is no public prophecy after the New Testament. Private revelation is another matter. And even when it’s approved by the Church, as with Fatima or Lourdes, it’s optional for anyone to accept it. Public prophecy (Scripture) is not optional. Channeling (Book of Mormon) is strictly forbidden.

 

[FCEGM]

Hi, From what I know being Catholic, there are no more prophets after Jesus. Yet, a mormon ( converted from Catholicism) refers to 1 Corinthians 12:28 to be “Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.” Does this mean there could actually be prophets after Christ? And why would we really need any more prophets anyways? Christ already came, we need no more laws of the old testamate, the ultimate sacrafice has already been had and we are no longer in the first covenant, Jesus is the new covenant through the Eucharist: Christ has died, Christ is risin, Christ will come again…but according to them, not before more prophets? I’m confused, we already have been given Jesus and our sins are forgivin, we already know what to look for in terms of the second coming…so why do we need more prophets? Help me please understand this scripture and their interpretation. Also what is the Catholic interpretation of this verse? From what I know and believe, there is no more need for prophets and there won’t be any. Thanks

The Mormons conflate prophecy and revelation; iow, they consider their President to be the “Prophet and Chief Revelator”. They believe him to be a channel from God for new revelations that may need to be given (e.g., that black men may now be considered for the LDS priesthood). They haven’t grasped that Christ is God’s final revelation to mankind - all that is necessary to believe in faith for salvation has been given by and in Him up to the time of the last Apostle and is conserved in His Church by the Magisterium He established with Peter and those in communion with him and his successors. Having been baptized into Him, members of the the Church have been baptized into Christ Who is Priest, Prophet and King, thus all Christians are to be prophets in that we are all in diverse ways called upon to witness to God and His prerogatives among men (so, for example Mother Teresa and John Paul II were both prophetic voices to our world); this doesn’t give us (Popes included), however, the role of proclaiming new doctrine that must be believed for our and others’ salvation, since all official revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.